Thursday, April 26, 2007

What Diplomacy Means to Speaker Pelosi

Someone needs to get Speaker Pelosi a PDA. The ones equipped with the appointment reminder alerts.

Or maybe she just needs a reminder of who our enemies are.

Remember how Speaker Pelosi went to Syria recently, and was roundly criticized for doing so? The criticism revolved around her playing president and changing our national foreign policy. Even publications that basically agreed with her intent nonetheless realized her actions were a grave mistake. The NY Times agreed with Ms. Pelosi's view that the US needs to open dialogue with Syria, despite that country's elbow-deep involvement in worldwide terrorism, assassinations in Lebanon, and supplying the very IED's that are killing soldiers and citizens in Iraq. The idea is that even though Syria is nominally an enemy to the United States, we should still meet with them.

Now juxtapose that with what occurred in Congress this week. Congressional leaders succeeded in passing an Iraq war funding bill that also called for troop withdrawal by October, perhaps sooner. It was a divisive debate, and had a razor thin margin of victory.

The administration opposes the bill, and the president has vowed to veto it. The four star general overwhelmingly approved by the Senate to oversee military operations in Iraq opposes it as well. In fact, General Petraeus envisions a lengthy stay in Iraq.

General Petraeus travelled back from Iraq this week to visit the Congress and update them on the status of the "surge" policy enacted in January. Listening to the experts would seem to be a good idea, wouldn't it? The Senate apparently agreed and scheduled the meeting. But it seems that under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi the House of Representatives initially declined to accept the general's offer of expert analysis. When some in Congress protested, leadership changed direction and set up the meeting.

What happened next is why someone ought to start up a collection or something so that Speaker Pelosi can get herself a PDA. According to CNN,
Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNN the Speaker realized "first thing (Tuesday) morning" she had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the all-House members briefing Wednesday

See, if only she had a PDA she could have known that she had a conflict when she set up the meeting in the first place. I hear they even make cell phones with scheduling capabilities too. Maybe she should get one of those.

"Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami" wasn't sure what it was exactly that took precedent over meeting with the four star general, but apparently another "Democratic aide with knowledge of her schedule" was able to tell CNN in another story that,
Anticipating a close vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi skipped Wednesday's briefing with Petraeus to lobby for passage

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, that's why. She couldn't attend the meeting she set up with the commander of US forces in Iraq because she was lobbying members of Congress to vote against his recommendations.

Is it possible that Ms. Pelosi doesn't really need a high tech scheduler after all? Could it be that she simply couldn't be bothered with a face to face meeting with General Petraeus because she had her own agenda to further? Obviously she doesn't agree with what the General is doing in Iraq, so what's the point in even discussing it with him?

Except that she just flew halfway across the globe to meet face to face with a man that is doing things in Iraq that she presumably disagrees with. Things like blowing up our soldiers and killing innocent civilians. She maintains that we should have normal, open relations with men like him, men that are enemies to our country. But if that man is a US general who just flew halfway across the globe to meet with her, apparently open relations aren't needed.


Charles D said...

There are really several problems with your analysis. First of all, there is no military solution to the mess the Bush administration caused in Iraq. There are only diplomatic and political solutions and they cannot succeed without the involvement of the key nations in that region of which Syria is one. Since the Bush administration doesn't even know the meaning of the word diplomacy, the Speaker's trip was even more necessary.

Second, I really don't believe that military officers should be put in the position of lobbying for a partisan agenda. Petraeus does envision a lengthy stay in Iraq. The American people don't want that and there is nothing to be gained from it that is of value to the United States, and every day we stay more brave young men and women die needlessly.

You need a reminder of who our enemies are: they are Al Qaeda, not anyone in Iraq. Instead of dealing with our enemy, this administration has wasted our treasure and over 3,000 lives in a war against a nation that never attacked us, and never posed a threat. Now we are stuck again occupying a nation halfway across the world against the will of the inhabitants. We are again destroying a nation while trying to "save" it. We have been here before and we should support everyone who is smart enough to put a stop to this madness.

Cameron said...

My analysis brought to light the inconsistency in the Speaker of the House advocating "diplomacy" with a known terrorist, but not with a United States general.

Apparently, in her rush to be President, Secretary of State, and General, she doesn't have time to actually listen to what her military leaders have to say about the situation.

If she had scheduled her time better she would have known that the leadership in Iraq think that the only way to foster an environment where diplomacy and democratic government can exist and thrive is to acheive a modicum of securtiy- and the way to provide that security is through the means our military is employing now; a new policy that had been called for by Democratic leaders as early as last year that despite only being enacted for a couple of months is showing signs of working.

If she had scheduled her time better she would have known that leadership in Iraq are quite aware that al Queda is still entrenched in Iraq and are pulling many of the strings in the "insurgency".

Hopefully she'll get one of those cell phone scheduler things to help her out.

Charles D said...

If the United States wants peace in the Middle East (and that's an open question) they will have to achieve a political solution involving all the key players in the area, regardless of what we may think of them. Syria and Iran are vital to any solution in Iraq.

Pelosi understands that - Bush does not. She also understands that there is no military solution in Iraq, and there will never be "security" in Iraq at the point of an American gun. She probably understands also that most of the Al Qaeda talk is puffery on their part and propaganda on our part. Once the US is out of Iraq, the Iraqis will make short work of Al Qaeda - they are foreigners too.

Face it Cameron. Bush started this war for no valid reason and now he can't extricate himself from it without an affront to his manhood and ego. I don't think a single additional American should die to preserve Bush's narcissistic megalomania.

Goat said...

Funny how the "Democracy lover" supports socialist totalitarian tactics, suppress the truth, promote left wing propoganda no matter how false it is, and wishes to turn a newly freed people back to the slaughter they have experienced for a couple generations. This fool loves democracy about as much as I love Al Qaida. Syria and Iran have ZERO interest in diplomacy or a stable democratic state on their borders. If this fool truelly supported that which his title claims he would be supporting our efforts not offering worn out talking points from the moonbat left. Cameron, you have been blogrolled, request the same, building that oak forest one step at a time.

Charles D said...

It seems to me that the "totalitarian tactic" is refusing to negotiate or compromise and insisting that everything should be done the way the leader wants - in other words, the Bush policy.

If today's Iraq is what being "newly freed" looks like to someone, they must have a rather warped concept of freedom.

Cameron said...

DL, your arguments about diplomacy in the Middle East probably belong to my Inconvenient Consensus post.

The current post is how it's interesting to me that she travelled halfway around the world to pander to a terrorist-supporting regime responsible for US deaths, but has "scheduling conflicts" when it comes to meeting with her own General.

There really is no excuse for that.

Charles D said...

Most likely, she knew what Petraeus was going to say, but had no idea what Assad would say.

Since we haven't tried diplomacy in the Middle East, it sure beats 3,000 US military deaths.

Cameron said...

Um, actually she did have a pretty good idea what he was going to say. She was apparently just a little more naive than the rest of the world when it came to talking to terrorists. From the Washington Post:

"What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.

But really, in Ms. Pelosi's world of diplomacy with terrorists, does it really matter if you already know what the other side is going to say? Shouldn't you meet with them anyway? Isn't that what her excuse was for going to Syria?

She "probably" already knew what Syria was going to say and what General Petraeus was going to say, yet only met with one of them.

Bottom line, she chose the terrorist over the US Army.